Baker v. Naples Urgent Care, PL et al, No. 2:2017cv00057 - Document 36 (M.D. Fla. 2017)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 32 Motion to approve settlement and to dismiss to electing an option and complying no later than August 11, 2017; adopting and incorporating 33 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/12/2017. (RKR)

Download PDF
Baker v. Naples Urgent Care, PL et al Doc. 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION GEORGE BAKER, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-57-FtM-99MRM NAPLES URGENT CARE, PL, a Florida limited liability company and ROBERT MCGANN, an individual, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33), filed June 26, 2017, recommending that that the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and to Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. #32) be denied without prejudice. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in Dockets.Justia.com whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 636(b)(1). 28 U.S.C. § The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). The Magistrate Judge recommends denial because numerous issues preclude a finding of fairness and reasonableness. More specifically, the Settlement Agreement Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (Doc. #32-1) fails to delineate what portion of the proceeds is attributable to constitutes liquidated damages. back wages, and what portion Further, the parties failed to specify the amount of fees to be paid to counsel for plaintiff, yet included language that counsel would otherwise bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge noted that there was no rationale provided for plaintiff’s recovery to be reduced if defendant Baker pays by the end of the year. The recommendation was for denial without prejudice to the parties electing an option to either file an amended motion, or a Case Management Report no later than August 11, 2017. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now - 2 - ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The parties' Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and to Dismiss With Prejudice (Doc. #32) is denied without prejudice to the parties electing an option and complying no later than August 11, 2017. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of July, 2017. Copies: Hon. Mac R. McCoy United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 3 - 12th day

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.